The BBC Radio 4 programme revisiting Climategate is on tonight at 9pm. Here's the blurb:

Climategate was the term quickly applied in 2009 to the mysterious appearance on the internet of large numbers of emails and documents belonging to some of the world's leading climate scientists.

This happened just a month before the Copenhagen climate change conference, which failed to meet the expectations of many for agreement on international action. The timing may not be coincidental.

For some climate change sceptics, the emails were a disturbing revelation of the real thoughts and manoeuvrings of scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Centre and their international colleagues. The scientists argue that while some of the phrasing may have been unfortunate, there is nothing in the documents to undermine the validity of mainstream climate science.

Climategate certainly inflamed the debate over climate change, in the UK, the US and elsewhere.

In 2012 the Norfolk Police announced they were abandoning their investigation into who hacked into the university's computer and then distributed what they found.

But what have been the longer-term consequences of this incident, for public opinion, media reporting and international policy-making on climate change? Chris Vallance investigates, asking if this was it a political crime, and, if so, how effective has it been?

As readers here know I was interviewed for the show as were Steve M, Tallbloke and Benny Peiser I think. CRU refused to take part, although Mike Hulme was involved.

Anything from the BBC has to be processed with the skills of an accomplished reader of Pravda or listener to Radio Moscow in the days of the USSR. I think such people did manage to glean some worthwhile snippets, aided by such guidelines as 'never believe anything until or unless it has been officially denied' (hat-tip Otto von Bismarck). I won't be able to hear the broadcast this evening, but I hope others will and perhaps spot any curiosities, clues from the kind of person allowed to speak freely, concepts allowed to be aired without denigratory labels or immediate 'rebuttals', absences of others who might possibly be no longer in favour and so on.

Its the same BBC that is putting so much effort and so much taxpayers money into trying to keep secret a list a people at a meeting about how the BBC sales 'climate doom' . Anyone want to guess how this program will go , what's the odd on them getting the 'hide the decline ' totally wrong and painting team CRU as 'victims '

From the meta data of the FOIA zip file in 2009 it follows that all Climategate documents and mails were modified (validly or default) on a computer with time zone settings -0400 or -0500. If the modification time is default, so is the zip access time. If a valid modification month is in the summer we have -0400, in the winter we have -0500. Valid modification hours point at a clock running in local American time. Perhaps it was a main frame computer, built in 1988 in America. Valid modification years of almost six thousand documents start in 1988. Top use was in 2000 and after 2004 only a few documents were modified. All mails have default modification year 2009 implying that they arrived a copies. Therefore, the computer was not a back-up server for the documents, which contradicts the official police report. Moreover, Briffa mailed from this computer on 18 February 2009. From the Harry-read-me document it can be inferred that the name of the computer was DPE1A, being a component of a distributed file system at CRU with server CRUA6. All valid access times of the zip are in GMT, implying that the zip was made on a computer with zero time zone setting. From the creation dates of the mails and zip access times it can be inferred that the minimum time FOIA needed for harvesting was 16 September 2009 - 13 November 2009, or about two months. All that time the dog did not bark, making it extremely implausible that Climategate was a hack.

Given that, in their own estimation, the CRU were the outraged and innocent victims of Climategate, it is bizarre in the extreme that they should not want to take part if only to proclaim, again, their innocence.

I suspect that the CRU's refusal to participate is because they do not want to be put in in a position where they might disclose something that contradicts the Norfolk Police's unsubstantiated (publicly, at least) claim that it was a hack and not a leak. If they were to do that, they might get investigated for perverting the course of justice (again).

The timing "just before Copenhagen" has now achieved meme status. But Copenhagen was still a month off, whereas my memory is that the release was within a day or two of the final rejection of a major FOI request. Seems more likely that that was the trigger. Perhaps the emails had been put together in preparation for complying, and then when the rejection occurred someone took advantage of that work and released (a portion of) the whole batch.

I’m going to stick my neck out and bet that this programme makes a supreme effort to be fair to sceptics. Tony Newbery of Harmess Sky once remarked that the one thing journalists hate the most is being told what to say. This programme isn’t coming from the Beeb’s environmentalist team.Ten euros against £8, or a used copy of the Hockeystick Illusion.Any takers?

Geoff - forget the 10 euros. If the programme is anything but a total repeat of the usual conspiracy theories about us Evil People, it'll be a sign of the End of the World.

In all other circumstances the Wrath of Monbiot will fall upon the Beeb, with matter-of-fact comparisons between Savile and people worse than Savile, ie the journalist daring to suggest Climategate wasn't a conspiracy by us Evil People.

Well, I think geoffchambers got it right: the programme did not push a specific agenda and was surprisingly fair to the sceptics. Pretty amazing from the Beeb. In particular, and knowing (from bitter personal experience) how easy it is to distort a recorded interview, I thought our host and Steve McIntyre were allowed to come over quite well.

Amazingly objective for the Beeb. They did allow warmists and sceptics to say their pieces. I got the impression that the unlabelled observers (perhaps assumed by the average uninformed listener to be neutral) tended to be died in the wool alarmists, but also amazingly, they were more measured in their bias than I would have expected.

Overall, it was a step in the right direction for the BBC, but the fact remains that the BBC Trust's policy on climate reporting is unacceptable and indefensible.

More balanced than usual, good comments from Andrew and Steve, interesting stuff from Paul Dennis. A few more details about the "hack" including an admission that the hack could easily have been done by an insider hacking in from outside. Most interesting bit was the statement that the hacker had tried to "frame" a UEA insider, presumably by assuming their identity for the early stages of the hack (which is of course standard practice in old style hacking, but they seemed to think it significant); the insider was interviewed by the police, and it seems to me that the program was implying that it was Paul Dennis, though I may be reading too much into the phrasing used (listening again I think I was over interpreting).

A Montford - very crisp throughout. Well done.Andrew Watson - complete misuse of the word conspiracist. Or perhaps not.Paul Dennis - excellent. Very good Paul was included from the heart of UEA.Bob Ward - agree with him on the effect of CG1 on the media coverageFionaHarvey - pressure from editors led to distortion. Rot. But interesting that editors were taking that line.AM again - huge pool of knowledge to give other point of view. Well put.Nigel Lawson - started with wealthier friends, more intelligent so saw the problems. Elitist but convincing!Fiona Fox - critical moment, something changed, more scrutiny, catastrophe now questioned, climate science can cope with it. Yeah, if it really changes.Peter Kellner - only 41% trusted after Climategate and has stayed the same since. Key witness.Lawson - scientists not the paragons of rectitude, if they had such a good case, why make disreputable movesSteve McIntyre - climate scientists needed to be offended by tricks to hide the decline, to say sorry and to stop. same with refusals of data. key moment.Ward - some common ground on open dataInquiries - SM not even interviewed, should have involved all interestsMann - voices were heard but were found to be without merit, led to conspiracy theory spiralAM - no conspiracy but inept for different reasons; Climategate needs public inquiryMike Hulme - three years up to Climategate and after: 50% increase of use of uncertainty; 6 -> 9%Fox - scientists saying I didn't want to be as open about uncertainty because of war footing, have to get over thisCG2 less dramatic, attracted less attentionNorfolk Police - can't say not a whistleblower but basically ruled it out. nobody is suspectedSM - interviewed by anti-terrorism police, Al-Qaeda joke worked wellUse of computer-generated voice for 'FOIA' but carefully leaving out his motivation for the poor

Curate's egg. But I continue to chuckle at Andrew Watson saying that we were claiming he was a conspiracist. He meant conspirator. But I think we do think he's a conspiracist so well played that man!

Maurizio:The End of the World is Nigh.From comments, I think I won my bet. `Richard Drake Many thanks for the summary. Reception of Radio4 via internet interrupted here in the south of France (due to seasonally bad climate?) (oh to be in England, now that we’re in for 6 months of unpredictable wind, floods and hailstorms). The little I managed to hear (no Montford) sounded like a finger up to Patten and Prof. Steve Jones. Message to readers here who see everything in terms of public versus private ownership: it’s not about the status of the BBC. It’s about journalism versus grovelling. You can do both, both in the public and the private sectors.

A couple of things niggled me - Bob Ward was introduced just as 'from the LSE' rather than as Grantham's PR man, and despite Paul Dennis saying otherwise, 'scientists' were depicted as being on one side.

Other than that I thought is was a major improvement on the BBC side. Perhaps now they might try to do the same with the actual science.

Everything and anything that has been propagated by IPCC et al only considers radiation and assumes energy balance controls climate. This is such a mistaken belief that it is little wonder there was a "necessity" to cover up in the Climategate fiasco.

Those who still believe the carbon dioxide hoax need to come to realise that energy balance does not determine climate. It's the other way round. Climate determines energy balance. Climate itself is determined by the incident solar energy which fluctuates in long term natural cycles probably related to planetary orbits.

Earth's surface temperature cools as heat from the Sun is transferred back to the atmosphere. This process is dominated by sensible heat transfer, not by radiation which accounts for less than 30% of such transfers.

All that backradiation can possibly do (according to physics) is slow that 30% of cooling which is due to radiation. Meanwhile, the other 70% merely accelerates to compensate, thus leaving no net effect on the overall rate of cooling. What comes in from the Sun will get out again by one means or another. When there are long periods of natural warming there will of course be a build up of energy being retained. The thermometers tell us that, without even having to measure the energy balance. But the opposite is the case when cooling sets in.

Backradiation is not the cause, because it cannot transfer heat to a warmer surface. It can only slow radiative cooling. See my peer-reviewed paper on PSI recently cited by Joseph Postma in his October 2012 paper.

My major concern was when sceptics were desctbed as none scientists which is to deny that there are scientists who are sceptics. And that is still the crux of the matter, any dissenting voice from within will neither be funded nor given a platform.

Colour me impressed. We can't have it all our own way, there are two sides to the debate, but this broadcast did what the BBC hasn't done for a long time, and that is to acknowledge this very fact. Paul Dennis's comments resonate regarding the validity and integrity of the sceptical approach to interpretations of data. I also take his point regarding the invective and vitriolic language indulged in, not just by the loony wazzock alarmist warmy scumbags, but also, on rare occasions, by us.. ;o)

Now what the BBC needs to do is partake of some introspection. Compare and contrast this team's standard of journalism with its environmental team's, to reveal the BBC's systemic environmental bias anomaly.